Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ftc Vs. Procter and Gamble Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 11, 1967

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

34 entries 34 unlinked
Show
  1. FTC v. Procter
    Search
  2. Gamble Co. - 386 U.S. 568 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court FTC v. Procter
    Search
  3. Gamble Co., 386 U.S. 568 (1967) Federal Trade Commission v. Procter
    Search
  4. and necessarily requires a prediction of the merger's impact on competition, present and future. See Brown Shoe Co. v. United
    Search
  5. United States v. Philadelphia
    Search
  6. Bank, 374 U. S. 321 . The section can deal only with probabilities, not with certainties. Brown She Co. v. United
    Search
  7. United States v. Penn-Olin
    Search
  8. may also result in economics, but it struck the balance in favor of protecting competition. See Brown Shoe Co. v. United
    Search
  9. F.2d 74, 82. And in the somewhat similar situation presented to the Seventh Circuit in Ekco Products Co. v. F.T
    Search
  10. Brown Shoe Co. v. United
    Search
  11. Cf. United States v. Penn-Olin
    Search
  12. problem we face is vastly different from those which concerned the Court in Brown Shoe, supra, and United States v. Philadelphia
    Search
  13. circumstances may call for fundamentally different tests of substantial anticompetitive effect. Compare United States v. Philadelphia
    Search
  14. FTC v. Consolidated
    Search
  15. Commission was following the path taken by this Court in judging more conventional merger cases, e.g., United States v. Philadelphia
    Search
  16. position, but adverse effects on competitors must be distinguished from adverse effects on competition. Brown Shoe Co, v. United
    Search
  17. United States v. Von's
    Search
  18. be sustained on this record, where no alternative formulation of market operation was attempted. See United States v. Philadelphia
    Search
  19. firms. Although there are those who attach a talismanic significance to small firm competition, see United States v. Von's
    Search
  20. It has been argued that the mergers before this Court in United States v. Aluminum
    Search
  21. Co. of America, 377 U. S. 271 , and United States v. Continental
    Search
  22. Cf. FTC v. Consolidated
    Search
  23. I intimate no view on whether economics would be a defense in a situation such as that presented in Ekco Products Co. v. F.T
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court FTC v. Procter
    Search
  25. Federal Trade Commission v. Procter
    Search
  26. Brown She Co. v. United
    Search
  27. Ekco Products Co. v. F.T
    Search
  28. Brown Shoe Co. v. United
    Search
  29. and United States v. Philadelphia
    Search
  30. Compare United States v. Philadelphia
    Search
  31. FTC v. Consolidated
    Search
  32. See United States v. Philadelphia
    Search
  33. United States v. Aluminum
    Search
  34. and United States v. Continental
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial